Wood-burning power plants emit more pollution per megawatt than coal plants

This is a total tragedy caused by environmentalists who are dangerously stupid.

“Power plants that burn wood to produce electricity emit comparatively more pollution than modern coal-fired power plants, according to a group that advocates tougher rules on the growing biomass-power industry.

The issue is relevant in Kentucky because of a proposed wood-burning power plant near Hazard, called ecoPower Generation, the state’s first.

In a study released early Wednesday, the Massachusetts-based Partnership for Policy Integrity said wood-fired plants are not as clean as advocates claim, putting more carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere than coal or natural-gas plants when judged on the ratio of pollution to energy produced.

For example, biomass plants emit nearly 50 percent more carbon dioxide — which traps heat in the atmosphere — per megawatt hour of electricity produced than coal plants, the study concluded. “

“”What emerges from our analysis is a picture of an industry that despite loudly and continually proclaiming itself clean and green, is in many respects still one of the dirtiest corners of the energy industry, an industry where avoidance of pollution restrictions is tolerated, and even encouraged, by state and federal regulators,” the report said.”

Despite industry “standards” that “underestimates hydrochloric acid emissions” the company went ahead and made up their own.

” ecoPower went a step further — that it “invented” its own standards to estimate total emissions of hazardous pollutants. Its level of emissions would have been higher even using the suspect industry standards, the report said”

http://www.kentucky.com/2014/04/02/3174184/report-wood-burning-power-plants.html   (h/t Marc Morano)

5 thoughts on “Wood-burning power plants emit more pollution per megawatt than coal plants

    1. Biomass produces more CO2. Biomass is supposed to be scrap wood. But complete trees are being cut down. So sure, biomass is good for people in the forest industry. But if CO2 is the most import GHG, biomass is bad. It also is dirtier.

  1. The key point here is where do you draw the box. If you draw the box from the troposphere up, burning trees adds 0 additional carbon, hence the argument for biomass being a green renewable technology. Sure the cellulose is converted to CO2 and H2O in complete combustion, but there is no net gain of carbon in the system. If you burn any fossil fuel, you’re taking carbon that has been removed from the box and adding it back in. One can debate whether the mass of carbon ejected into the atmosphere daily from fossil fuel combustion is or will have any effect; however, there can be no debate that carbon in the troposphere is increasing. The only question remaining is the timetable and degree of any effect.

    1. “Carbon” is not a GHG. CO2 is a GHG. The idea that CO2 and Carbon are interchangeable is a con. If you cut down a tree and and burn enough of it to produce 1 joule of energy, more often than not there will be 50% or more CO2 produced than if you burn enough coal to produce 1 Joule. Naural gas will produce 40% less CO2 than coal for the same 1 Joule.

      If you are burning trees instead of coal to prevent global warming you are making things worse.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s